FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop Williamson- Rotten Apples
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(05-15-2011, 10:56 AM)wallflower Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 10:38 AM)Meg Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 10:31 AM)wallflower Wrote: [ -> ]Meg, I'm confused. Who wanted you to genuflect before a meal? Your first post says the NO but your second says SSPX.

Also, not trying to be rude, but to think that the Bishop hasn't gotten out much indicates you probably don't know him well. He isn't who he is for all these decades because of secondhand accounts coming to him as he hides out in his office. He's been on the front lines since before many of us were born and has seen and experienced more than many of us combined. Agree or disagree with him, it has nothing to do with him not getting out.
I don't think you're being rude at all. It was in an NO sermon that I attended two days ago, where the priest said that we should not be afraid to show our faith in a public manner - such as genuflecting when we say our before and after meal prayers - even in a restaurant. I apologise if I wasn't clear about that. An SSPX priest told me the same thing once. I almost always say at least a before meal prayer at restaurants - with the usual genuflection. No one has ever said that they were bothered by this. If others in the restaurant are offended by this, then that 's too bad, but I'm not going to stop because of it. We should not be afraid to show that we are Catholics.

Thank you.  Smile

Interesting. I've never heard of genuflecting for grace and you've heard it from two different priests! We have genuflected for the Angelus though, said with grace, but not in public. In public, the Sign of the Cross is our outward sign.

Come to think of it,  we don't even genuflect for the Angelus in private anymore. I couldn't say why though. We've been exposed to different customs from different places and I often can't remember who does what and why.   

Now that you mention it, even when I attended an SSPX chapel, I thought it was odd that I was the only one who genuflected and said my meal prayers at the potlucks. Maybe it's not a usual thing for Catholics to do. But the catechism that the SSPX priest gave me says that we are to pray before and after meals, so I thought that most Catholics do this - but maybe not. I've always felt that the SSPX priest who baptized me is unusually pious and devout!

Pray
(05-15-2011, 10:37 AM)justlurking Wrote: [ -> ]The idea of the Two Churches was invented in the 60's by an Argentine Priest called Julio Meinvielle

I wouldn't be surprised if Williamson learned that here before he was expulsed from Argentina

This is the text in Spanish

"“Pero así como la Iglesia comenzó siendo una semilla pequeñísima, y se hizo árbol y árbol frondoso, así puede reducirse en su frondosidad y tener una realidad mucha más modesta. Sabemos que el mysterium iniquitatis ya está obrando; pero no sabemos los límites de su poder.

Sin embargo, no hay dificultad en admitir que la Iglesia de la publicidad pueda ser ganada por el enemigo y convertirse de Iglesia Católica en Iglesia gnóstica. Puede haber dos Iglesias, la una la de la publicidad, Iglesia magnificada en la propaganda, con obispos, sacerdotes y teólogos publicitados, y aun con un Pontífice de actitudes ambiguas; y otra, Iglesia del silencio, con un Papa fiel a Jesucristo en su enseñanza y con algunos sacerdotes, obispos y fieles que le sean adictos, esparcidos como “pusillus grex” por toda la tierra.

Esta segunda sería la Iglesia de las promesas, y no aquella primera, que pudiera defeccionar. Un mismo Papa presidiría ambas Iglesias, que aparente y exteriormente no sería sino una. El Papa, con sus actitudes ambiguas, daría pie para mantener el equívoco. Porque, por una parte, profesando una doctrina intachable sería cabeza de la Iglesia de las Promesas. Por otra parte, produciendo hechos equívocos y aun reprobables, aparecería como alentando la subversión y manteniendo la Iglesia gnóstica de la Publicidad."


This is my own terrible translation of the relevant part

There can be two churches, the first one of publicity, a church magnified through propaganda, with publicized bishops, priests, and theologians, and even with a Pope of ambiguous attitudes, and another, a Church of silence, with a Pope loyal to Christ in the teachings, with some priests, bishops, and loyal catholics, who follow him, and are spreaded around earth as "pussilus grex"

This second Church would be the one of the promises, and not the first one, which could defect. The same pope would be the head of both churches, which apparently and outwardly would be the same church and not two different ones.
The Pope, with his ambiguous attitudes, would allow the manteinence of all that is equivocal. So, one one side, by professing an uncorrupted doctrine, he would be the head of the Church of the promises. One the other side, by producing ambiguous acts, and even reproachable acts, he would appear as if he were supporting the subversion and mantaining the Gnostic Church of Publicity.


That was written before JPII was made Pope and before Assisi. I think it is a dangerous idea.

Justlurking, would you be willing to explain why you believe that this is a dangerous idea? (The 'two churches' issue, I mean). Thanks.
Are you confusing genuflection with the sign of the cross? Genuflection means either touching the floor with the knee, or full-on kneeling.
No one is the head of two Churches.  You are either Catholic or you are not - that's the essence of being Catholic.  You're either in or you're out - there's no half way.
(05-15-2011, 11:13 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Are you confusing genuflection with the sign of the cross? Genuflection means either touching the floor with the knee, or full-on kneeling.

I'm pretty sure that the priest said to genuflect when saying the meal prayer. I took it to mean the sign of the cross. At least I think that's what he said. Maybe he did say to do the sign of the cross when saying meal prayers in a restaurant. That's the picture I got in my mind when he said that, anyway!  Smile
(05-15-2011, 11:17 AM)Meg Wrote: [ -> ]I'm pretty sure that the priest said to genuflect when saying the meal prayer. I took it to mean the sign of the cross.

Oh. That's not the same thing, though. "Flectamus genua" is Latin for "let us bend the knee". Hence, genuflection means kneeling, or bowing to touch the floor.
(05-15-2011, 11:17 AM)Meg Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 11:13 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Are you confusing genuflection with the sign of the cross? Genuflection means either touching the floor with the knee, or full-on kneeling.

I'm pretty sure that the priest said to genuflect when saying the meal prayer. I took it to mean the sign of the cross. At least I think that's what he said. Maybe he did say to do the sign of the cross when saying meal prayers in a restaurant. That's the picture I got in my mind when he said that, anyway!  Smile

My apologies - my memory must be faulty - see my revised post above.

Does anyone know if there is a Dinoscopus archive somewhere?

In a way it doesn't matter now as His Excellency is making his present stance clear, but for future referrence if anyone were to claim that he used to speak in terms of two Churches as a reality, I'd like to know how true that is. We've lost touch since he left Argentina and I never did get around to subscribing to the Dinoscopus (until now). Not having read all of them, I might not be getting the full picture if he has changed in this view over the past few years. 

(That probably explains it Meg. We do the Sign of the Cross in public too but not kneeling (genuflecting). Either way you are not afraid to be true to the Faith in public and that's what counts. Smile)

Thanks wallflower. Actually, I never kneel when saying meal prayers, and never have done so - I've just gotten the terms wrong - and obviously remembered wrongly what terms the priests used. I think what they must have said is to do the sign of the cross. My bad. I'll say no more about it, since I've taken the thread off-track enough as it is.
(05-15-2011, 10:37 AM)justlurking Wrote: [ -> ]That was written before JPII was made Pope and before Assisi. I think it is a dangerous idea.

Mmm... an idea from the 60s versus an idea from St. Robert Bellarmine.  I wonder which one is traditional. Hmmm...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10